My colleague Jonathan McIntosh points to the Aristotelian source for Thomas’s views on touch:
“we have a more precise sense of taste because it is a certain type of touch, and that is the most precise sense a human being has. For in the other sense, the human being is left behind by many of the animals, but with respect to touch he is precise in a way that greatly surpasses the rest, and this is why he is the most intelligent of the animals. A sign of this is that within the human race, being naturally well or badly endowed with intelligence depends on the organ of this sense and not on the others, for those with tough skin are badly equipped by nature for thinking, but those with tender skin are well equipped” (Aristotle, De anima 2.9421a19-27).
What intrigues me is the way that Aristotle’s views on touch are overlaid with class distinctions. Rough-skinned slaves and metics are not fit for thought, and Aristotle has the temerity to say that they are rough-skinned “by nature.” Smooth-skinned aristocrats are fitted by nature for leisure and philosophy.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
Rome and the Church in the United States
Archbishop Michael J. Curley of Baltimore, who confirmed my father, was a pugnacious Irishman with a taste…
Marriage Annulment and False Mercy
Pope Leo XIV recently told participants in a juridical-pastoral formation course of the Roman Rota that the…
Undercover in Canada’s Lawless Abortion Industry
On November 27, 2023, thirty-six-year-old Alissa Golob walked through the doors of the Cabbagetown Women’s Clinic in…
